PROHIBITION OF INTERVENTION IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R001100090021-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 6, 2005
• Sequence Number: 21
• Publication Date: January 23, 1975
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100090021-1
January 23, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 111285
inclusion of housing payments in kind not
in excess of $2-5 is most unpopular among
the States. To determine the value of in kind
income, State agencies must develop exper-
tise in estimating the value of housing or ob-
tain guidance on the matter through other
agencies or organizations. In either case,
any possible savings to the program are more
than offset by the complexities, if not im-
possibilities, of effectively administering this
provision. Further, this provision would per-
mit housing payments in kind to be disre-
garded for purposes of income, and thus be
treated consistently with the way In which
other payments in kind are handled under
the food stamp and. other welfare-type pro-
grams.
The revision of Subsection 5 (b) further
deletes the provision prohibiting the partici-
pation of certain tax dependents in the food
stamp program. In its decision in the case
of Murry v. USDA, 413 U.S. 508, the Supreme
Court ruled that the "tax dependency" pro-
vision of the Act is unconstitutional. Thus,
the "tax dependency" provision in the cur-
rent Act is not enforceable.
This provision was introduced at the re-
quest of the administration in the 93rd Con-
gress, but no action was taken.
SECTION 4
This section of the bill revises Section
10(e) (7) of the Act.
Subsection (e) (7) is revised to give a State
agency an option to establish a system under
which a food stamp household may elect to
have its charge for the coupon allotment
withheld from its public assistance check.
The Act now mandates a State agency to
offer such a system. This service is costly and
of questionable value. An optional system
would permit a State to operate the system
in an area where it would be helpful, such
as rural localities lacking adequate transpor-
tation. The State would not be required to
bear the cost of administering such a system
in larger metropolitan areas where public
assistance withholding is not only of mini-
mal usefulness but also subject to abuse.
Giving the States this option could serve to
gain their increased cooperation in other
areas of greater program importance.
This provision was introduced at the re-
quest of the administration in 93rd Con-
gress, but no action was taken.
SECTION 5
This amendment deletes from the house-
hold definition, Section 3(e), the language
on eligibility of supplemental security in-
come recipients. The current temporary pro-
vision under which supplemental security
income recipients may automatically partici-
pate in the program will expire on June 30,
1975. On July 1, 1975, the complicated and
costly provisions of Public Law 93-86 will
become effective.
Subsection (b) of this section therefore
contains a new provision governing the eli .
Under the provision all SSI recipien in
all states would be automatically eligi. ' for
food stamps. It is estimated that ; least
90% of the SSI recipients do in fact ve net
food stamp income below the nat 1 guid-
lines. The administrative expens_ investi-
gating the 1 million SSI particip s, to weed
out the few Ineligibles, would 11 probabil-
ity be greater than oertifln ;for minimum
bonus the few SSI recipie -slightly above
Public assistance re ents (AFDC) are
automatically eligible der food stamp reg-
ulations. This amen ent would extend that
system to SSI re ents on a permanent
basis and elevate a regulation to law.
SECTION 6
Section 6,moves the requirement that
food stampecipients who are housebound,
feeble, physically handicapped, or otherwise
disabled must be over 60 years of age to use
stamps for meals-on-wheels.
Without this section, many incapacitated
persons under 60 who receive meals-on-
wheels have to pay cash for the meals even
though they have food stamps. Purchase of
delivered meals with food stamps would still
be limited to incapacitated persons.
(Mr. PATMAN asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
[Mr. PATMAN's remarks will appear
hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]
(Mr. PATMAN asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and-to include ex-
traneous matter.)
CMr. PATMAN's remarks will appe4
PRICE OF FOOD STAMP
(Ms. HOLTZMAN asked a was gi-
ven permission to extend her arks at
Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. S aker, under
a Department of Agric lire directive,
to go into effect March I Z,:975, the cost of
food stamps will be in eased to 30 per-
cent of the recipients' onthly incomes.
In order to prevent is callous attack
on the elderly and.- or by the Ford ad-
ministration, I a reintroducing today
with 46 cosponsor legislation introduced
on the first day the session of the 94th
Congress. This egislation prohibits in-
creases in th purchase price of food
tion and recession, this Nation will not
let its people starve.
The co-sponsors are: Mr. ADDASBO, Mr.
BED:ELL, Mr. BOLAND, Mr. CARR, Mr. CON-
YERS, Mr. ECKHARDT, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr.
FLORIO, Mr. FORD of Michigan, Mr. FRA-
SER, Mr. GAYDOS, Mr. HELSTOSKI, Mr.
HICKS, Mr. MCKINNEY, MS. MEYNER, Mr.
MOLLOHAN, Mr. MuRPHY of New York, Mr.
REUSS, Mr. ROE, M;n ROSENTHAL, Mr. SAR-
ETTI, Ms. Amu
!9Y
SPECIAL COUNSEL BILL
(Ms. HOLTZMAN asked and was given
permission to extend her remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr, Speaker, last
week I introduced a bill (H.R. 540) which
will provide for the appointment of a
special counsel to represent the United
States in any litigation involving the
tape recordings and other Presidential
materials of Richard Nixon.
At the end of the last session, Con-
gress enacted a law which places custody
and title of Richard Nixon's Presidential
papers and tapes in the United States.
This was necessary legislation, and I
commend my colleagues on the House
Administration Committee for bringing
it to the floor.
The recently enacted law, Public Law
93426, has the effect of abrogating the
agreement between Richard Nixon and
Arthur Sampson, director of GSA-which
gave custody and control to. Mr. Nixon
of all Presidential papers and tape re-
cordings generated during his adminis-
tration. The law, thus, does away with
one of the troublesome aspects of the
aftermath of Watergate.
However, the new law fails to address
an equally troubling problem. In any
litigation involving these Presidential
materials--whether the issue is one of
ownership, fair compensation, the valid-
ity of the Nixon-Sampson agreement, or
public access to these materials-the
interests of the United States will be
represented by the Justice Department.
In fact, litigation is currently in progress
between Mr. Nixon and the General
Services Administration, and the Justice
Department is representing the United
States-in a posture adverse to Mr.
Nixon.
The problem is that the Justice De-
partment, in a memorandum from Attor-
ney General Saxbe to President Ford, has
already taken the position that all tapes
and documents created by or in the files
of former President Nixon belong to him.
The Justice Department has also stated
that it intends to represent Richard
Nixon in certain civil litigations arising
out of charges of misconduct in office.
Richard Nixon has accepted this offer.
It is difficult to see how the Justice De-
partment can adequately represent the
interests of the U.S. taxpayers when it
No groupas suffered more from in-
fl ation tha senior citizesn. Most live on
incomes w lch are fixed or have risen at
a snail's ce, while living costs-parti-
cularly r the cheaper kinds of food-
have s rocketed. Instead of being able
to liv n dignity, some elderly persons
en forced to steal food, others to
eat food. Many live on the edge of
ha/Val.
sur
the face of this national disgrace,
of all recipients must pay :for food stamps,
the administration hopes to save from
$300 million to $1 billion. Nearly every
penny of that savings will come from
the food budgets of our most desperately
poor citizens, most of whom will lose
from $8 to $13 per month.
My bill will prevent the administration
from taking this action.'It will prevent
the :Department of Agriculture from rais-
ing food stamp purchase requirements
beyond those currently in effect.
President Ford would take food from
the mouths of the elderly and poor, tell-
ing them instead to "bite the bullet." I
do not believe the American people sup-
port this modern version of a "let them
eat cake" policy. I urge my colleagues to
work for the passage of my bill, and de-
monstrate that, even in a time of infla-
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100090021-1
 Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100090021-1
11286 CONGRESSIONAL RECC RD - HOUSE January 23, 19 75
has already conceded the central Issue in
the pending tapes case by -saying the
tapes and papers belong to Richard
Nixon. Also, itwould be ilifflcult to envi-
sion how the Justice Department could
vigorously litigate against someone it is
defending as a client in other
proceedings.
To remedy this situation, my bill pro-
ides for the appointment, by the Presi-
'lent, with advice and consent of the Sen-
ate, of a special counsel to represent the
interests of the United States in any
itiuation involving the Presidential
aaterials of Richard Nixon. The special
=tinsel would be independent of the Jus-
tir-e Department and the Attorney Gen-
?`"'671.
11 the courts are to decide the complex
ind important questions of ownership
>_6rxd custody of, and access to, Presiden-
yial materials, the United States is en-
;itled to representation by counsel who
has not committed himself publicly to
the position of his adversary-Richard
Nixon. My legislation will see to it that
such counsel is provided.
=dTATEMENT ON PROHIBITING JUS-
TICE DEPARTMENT FROM DE-
FENDING RICHARD NIXON
(Ms. HOLTZMAN asked and was given
ermission to extend her remarks at this
point in the RECORD.)
Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Speaker, on
January 14, I introduced a bill (H.R.
1312) to prohibit the Justice Department
:mom using public funds to defend Rich-
:?rd Nixon or any-Watergate convict in
civil suits arising out of misconduct in
office.
--his bill is necessitated by the Justice
T)epartment's announcement last Sep-
,ember that it had offered to defend
Richard Nixon in civil suits arising out of
Watergate and related matters. Mr. Nix-
on accepted the offer.
it is ironic that the very conduct which
resulted in Mr. Nixon's virtual impeach-
ment and resignation from office in dis-
= race should at the same time make him
the recipient of such generosity by the
Government he sought to undermine. It
may well result in a situation where the
.Justice Department and the Special
Prosecutor's office find themselves on op-
posite sides of the courtroom in the same
vase-for example, if the Justice Depart-
ment represents Mr. Nixon as a witness
in a case being tried by the Special Pros-
ecutor.
Two years ago in a similar situation,
Judge Charles R. Richey disqualified the
. :stico Department from representing
a rharles W. Colson in a civil action
# rought by the Democratic National
Committee, because the Justice Depart-
uaent was at the same time investigating
criminal activities in which Mr. Colson
xr.y have participated.
At least five suits have already been
fled against Mr. Nixon, all of which the
justice Department has offered to de-
fend. It is noteworthy that the Justice
Department refused to release a copy of
its letter offering to defend Mr. Nixon,
saying that it related to confidential
nmatters between a lawyer and his client.
R. is intolerable to see Mr. Nixon be-
come a client of the U.S. Government.
It is unconscionable to use taxpayers'
moneys to defend a man who resigned in
the face of certain impeachr ent-for his
"high crimes" against the Anerican Peo-
ple. I hope that my colleag es will join
with me in abrogating these new duties
which the Justice Departnent has as-
sumed.
CHILD CARE DEDU(;TION
(Ms. HOLTZMAN asked acd was given
permission to extend her remarks at
this point in the Record.)
Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. fr-eaker, last
week, I introduced a bill (xH.R. 541) to
improve the child care deduction provi-
sion of the Internal Revenue Code. By
liberalizing these provisions my bill will
facilitate women's parts -itation in
meaningful activity outside the home.
The current deduction fr,c child care
expenses is deficient in several respects.
First, it is not available to married
couples if one spouse is w_,.rking part-
time, even though the other spouse is
employed on a full-time basis. Yet, one-
quarter of the women in this country,
comprising 13 percent of th% population,
work on a parttime basis. By not allow-
ing the deduction in the c--.se of part-
time employment, we pe.;alize these
women. Furthermore, the current provi-
sion has the effect of forcii., women to
deduction will be available on the same
basis as any other business expense de-
duction subject to such rules and reg-
ulations as the IRS may provide;
Third. It makes the deduction avail-
able to a person whose spouse aas been
absent for more than half of the tax-
able year; and
In addition, my bill makes the follow-
ing changes for purposes of simplicity:
It replaces the monthly limitations on
deductible expenses with an annual lim-
itation. This will ease both the filing
and administrative process. It a bolishes
the distinction in present law between
care in the home and care outside the
home. In addition, it eliminates the a1d-
justment for disability payments.
I believe this bill will advence the
cause of women's right. to work. It is not
intended to replace the necessity of a
national child care system. It does not
pretend to solve the problems of work-
ing parents and child care. H;3pefully,
comprehensive legislation will he en-
acted to make available higl-quality
child care facilities to our Nation's chil-
dren. In. the meantime, my bill will serve
to ease the economic burden of countless
moderate- and low-income :amilies,
eliminate discrimination in present pro-
visions, and make a strong commitment
to the special needs of working parents,
particularly those women who must or
want to work.
least part of the day with ti:cir childre
and part of the day at work.
wish to return to school, after havi
children, to prepare for a career. It
equally harsh on families wi-:ere the hus
band is a full-time student, xnd the wif
has to work full time.
_ Third, child care expenses axe now de-
ductible only as personal expenses rather
than as ordinary business expenses. This
means that the deduction is not avail-
able to families who use t.ae standard
deduction form. Since 74 percent of the
families with earnings of $15.000 Or less
do not itemize deductions z of 1972-
they cannot take advantage of the pres-
ent child care tax provision:,. Yet, these
are often the people who melt need and
most deserve assistance from::: tax relief.
Finally, the present child _ are deduc-
tion is not available to a .erson who
has been separated from his o r her spouse
for less than the entire te-rable year.
Thus, an individual whose -oouse has
been absent for 11 months -f the tax-
able year does not get the be refit of any
part of the deduction.
My bill will correct these deficiencies
and will give the benefits c the child
care provision to those who gltimately
need them:
First. It makes the child t -ire dedu
working spouses;
Second. It allows the dedu Lion as a
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP77MOO144ROO
PROHIBITION OF INTERVEN"'ION IN
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
(Ms. HOLTZMAN asked and was given
permission to extend her remarks at this
point in the RECORD.)
Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Speaker, last
week I introduced a bill (H.R. 1311) that
prohibits any U.S. citizen or resident
from offering a contribution to a U.S.
Government agency in order to influence
elections in a foreign country. My bill
also prohibits any U.S. Government
agency or employee from soliciting or
accepting contributions :n orde.? to in-
fluence an election for public ofice in a
foreign country.
The need for this bill was mad appar-
ent when we learned of ITT's at': empt to
give heavy financial contributions to the
CIA, in an effort to block the election of
Salvador Allende as President of Chile
in 1970. We were treated to the specter
of a Government agency's being -aced for
private purposes.
Recent revelations In the press have
made us painfully aware of the dan-
gers-both to our foreign: policy and to
our democracy-of a supersecret overn-
ment agency dedicated to undeomining
and "destabilising" any county- it be-
lieves poses a threat to our "national
security." Equally serious is the -'rowing
tendency of our multinational c ,rpora-
tions to use any means neces.;ary to
shape the environments in whi- h they
do business to conform to their economic
needs. The combined power an 1 arro-
gance of a CIA and an ITT i;oses a
frightening picture of a future world.
This bill passed the Senate in he last
Congress.. It deserves passage by both
Houses and enactment into law.